In reply to tlm: Each to there own really. I've recently come back to climbing after 10 years, I enjoy going to the wall for the social side and the fact it'll make me stronger out on the rock. I guess some don't go outside at all but I bet there are plenty of bike riders that only ride on the track and think mountain biking is mad! There's plenty of room for everyone at the wall or outside if you ask me. As for climbing being in the Olympics, it hasn't got a chance for lots of very dull reasons. It's best chance of a big stage is the X Games and can't see that happening either!

In reply to tlm: I must admit, I had a similar "WTF" feeling when my copy of Summit arrived. I just feel it was a waste of pages that were of no interest to me or my friends at all, and I'm sure I am not the only climber who doesn't climb indoors and thinks the same?!

In reply to muppetfilter:
note the emphasis ' ...' but Sport England categorise mountaineering and hillwalking in all its guises as a sport...but so is flying model aeroplanes, ballroom dancing arm wrestling and ...get this...hovering!

i take exception to the pursuit of climbing as a an olympic sport by my national body without reference to membership interests...it has been on the mooted for years but has the BMC/BMC AGM ever asked its memebership if this is something it wants represented?

I know what you mean. I was climbing down at Portland yesterday and there was this guy hanging out near us. He was telling me how climbing mags suck and how his climbing wall should keep better material for him to read while he drinks his coffee. He didn't even climb much. Not sure what his deal was, but people like that are definitely taking climbing down the drain.

The BMC listens to members' concerns regularly through its system of area meetings and AGM. If you think it may be acting against the wishes of all UK climbers (rather than the narrow group who think that climbing should stand still and never adapt to changes in climbers' preferences even though there's no evidence it will change anything for traditionalists) you should raise this at your next area meeting. My guess is that you'll find it has already been discussed quite recently after being raised by other minority voices such as your own.

Climbing is a wonderful, vibrant and ever-changing sport that means different things to different people, including many who only climb indoors, many who enjoy competing and many who won't admit to enjoying anything other than outdoor trad (unless it's overseas of course). In my experience most climbers will have a fairly balanced and tolerant view of climbing's various disciplines and opportunities. It's the BMC's role to represent and balance the sport for all and I happen to think that in recent years it's been doing a pretty good job of it.

If I climb once per year at the wall or in my bathroom but i enjoy climbing then i am a climber.

Far too much precious sentiment here. You would complain if the crags were too busy with chavs and their North Face gear, spitting, shitting and leaving litter yet when they only climb at the wall once per annum you complain.

> Secondly, at the climbing wall, I looked for something to read with my coffee - only one climbing magazine available, but loads of copies of M&D....

Simple explanation: M&D is a free magazine the wall gets given for people to take away and nobody wants them. Second: all the climbing magazines have been nicked by climbers or the wall is too cheap to buy some because it thinks they will get nicked by climbers.

In reply to john arran:
John, Thats a very evocative range of statements...but being objective how have you determined that ...'its a minority voice'...and what exactly is 'a traditionalist'...is it someone taking a considered view of progressive marginal mixed climbing on Gable, or dry tooling up the manmade peg lines lines of Millstone?
Seriously...

This is what our national body should be doing before it pursues policies that have far reaching consequences to resource and development (that are driven by apparent self interest <deliberately evocative).

To help along please feel free to fill in the numbers:
Total UK climbers= (a)
Total BMC members= (b)
Number of unique people attending area meeting= (c)
c/b=??
c/a=??

The BMC pursues the broadest possible representation of the climbing, mountaineering and of late hill walking community...whereas the area meetings barely attract more than a coachload of passionate local climber activists...
I am not aware of it being explored in the last 5-10 years by printed or online poll of the greater audience it represents? Did I miss it and the mandate it created.

Presumably (my limited experience in such matters) it would bring a new dynamic to the funding patterns of the BMC in the areas of performance sport and development associated with indoor and competition climbing e.g. from UK sport...which would mean as far as i can determine it being cut off from Sport England in those funding elements?

Do you get it? It's not hard. Sports evolve as people try them and adapt them to their own needs.

I climb almost exclusively indoors due to time and family commitments that preclude me from climbing outdoors with any regularity. I don't regard my indoor climbing as training for outdoors, I just like it for what it is. To be honest I couldn;t give a shit about rock climbing....

In reply to tlm: When I got this issue of summit and saw the front page I thought the same thing. It has just been turned into a comic like the other specific climbing magazines. They are all about making climbing 'look cool'. Where are the quality articles of yesteryear? I would now and again like to read something that isn't aimed at children. This is a trend that is affecting many many 'sports'.

I see it as a minority view because whenever you or a few others harp on about it on here you get very few people supporting your scare-mongering view. Also I believe that the issue has been discussed recently at all levels of the BMC and if there was overwhelming support for the BMC spending considerable time and resources polling its members individually it would have become apparent during that process. If you think otherwise then feel free to raise it again and see if you can get the support of what you apparently believe may be a majority of BMC members. That's the democratic process - the alternative would be an expensive knee-jerk reaction to every scare story of imminent doom every time anyone such as yourself demands it.

I'm not going to play your numbers game because it's irrelevant. If you have an agenda and want to further it I suggest you club together with however many like-minded people you can find and take part in the democratic process to get your voices heard. If the area meetings are so poorly attended it should be easy enough for you to arrange for enough like-minded people to be there to be taken seriously.

> The BMC listens to members' concerns regularly through its system of area meetings and AGM.

I've been to a few area meetings. However, they do preclude anyone who climbs regularly but is unable to attend. Lots of climbers live in the South East, where if they are working during the week, it is next to impossible to attend a meeting. Many people with commitments find it hard to attend meetings that may involved a couple of hours drive to get there. I've taken the time to write to the BMC before and not had a reply.

I think the BMC does excellent work in many areas, and I do understand the constraints of limited time and resources, but the area meets aren't a good way to get a good overall picture of the views of members.

In reply to tlm:
The current BMC president lives in Swanage. He served 3 years as a VP, and countless years on the national council before that. That's a hell of a lot of journeys to Manchester, plas y Bernin, and other venues from Northumberland to Gower, Devon to Kent.

As he pointed out to me at my first NC meeting, a 2 hour journey would be a pleasant change, but if you care about something, you put the effort in.

Regarding the Olympics, suppose the area meetings and the national council had voted overwhelmingly against the idea, but the BMC exec had decided to ignore that and put it out to a national vote ? How aggrieved would the anti-Olympians be then ? More to the point, it would have been a complete slap in the face to all the volunteers and activists who do put in the effort to go to the meetings.

In reply to tlm: Have to agree, any climbing magazine that starts with "Heading Outside, how to climb on rock" shows how pathetic and culturally moribund, and controlled by statist leftist social engineering, our society has become.

Face facts, the various bits of what we still loosely lump together as 'climbing' are now do diverse and divergent that it is next to impossible to find a coherent common thread. Trying to make them a single 'sport' - and many won't even accept that word as an apt description for their activity - is as daft as lumping together golf and rugby because they both involve a ball (of sorts). Anyone trying to simultaneopusly represent hard core Alpinists and indoor boulders is on a loser from the start.
I'm an outdoor rock climber, mainly sport these days but with a wish to do more trad and I have weekly wall sessions in the winter so maybe towards the centre of the Alpinist/boulderer spectrum. I've not done any winter climbing for about three decades, never climbed in the Alps and have no wish to go to the Himalays yet even I think that indoor bouldering is to climbing what smacking a ball against the garage wall is to lawn tennis and competition climbing is an interesting circus act worth watching for five minutes or so.
Maybe it's time to have several, or even no, repesentative bodies

In reply to john arran: You see it as a minority view yet you refuse to play the numbers game because its irrelevant ;0)

The big picture is that a vast majority of us climbers go out and do it because we enjoy it in whatever shape or form we choose to. An insignificant minority of people go to try and beat people in competitions.

If the money is going there then thats rather sad as all the other great things that climbing offers are lost ... Nature, Conservation, Histoy, Travel, Culture, Literature .etc

> (In reply to john arran) You see it as a minority view yet you refuse to play the numbers game because its irrelevant ;0)

Those statements are not contradictory. Proportions of climbers attending meetings may be small but since anyone with an opinion is welcome to attend you can't use not bothering to turn up as an excuse. I agree that there's potential nowadays to offer more opportunities to court opinion but this is what we have so this is what we should use - or petition directly to change it rather than griping on here about it

> The big picture is that a vast majority of us climbers go out and do it because we enjoy it in whatever shape or form we choose to. An insignificant minority of people go to try and beat people in competitions.

A minority, of course. Insignificant is debatable. Id say it was considerably more popular than dry-tooling and DWS. Are they insignificant too or should we really be trying to be inclusive?

> If the money is going there then thats rather sad as all the other great things that climbing offers are lost ... Nature, Conservation, Histoy, Travel, Culture, Literature .etc

Sounds like more unsubstantiated scaremongering. I don't know the current financial arrangements or proposals but I very much doubt there's any plan to divert money away from other core climbing support. Of course you'll be able to find people willing to speculate that that will be the case in order to support whatever prejudice they may have against competitive sport.

In reply to john arran:
You really seem to enjoy applying some evocative language John... I suggested we work from objective numbers on this instead of using 'minority' as a charged subjective turn of phrase that means f'all, I cannot find any substantiation of our communities interest in IOC inclusion for or against...so..
of BMC membership of 75 000 on the question of IOC inclusion
how many are pro
how many against
and how many dont care
so exactly how many is this minority or majority? I have no way of knowing what the climbing mountaineering and hillwalking membership of the BMC want on this, and that this is indeed representative of non-BMC activists.

BTW I have not a clue why you choose the word scaremongering? ...simple questions...what are the funding streams for the development of climbing as a competitive sport in the olympics? Has UK Sport already allocated funds for this, or has the 3 year stream from membership revenues and Sport England already had an an allocation ring fenced...or is it going to be funded by commercial activities. I'd love to know...as somebody somewhere has to pay for it financially? Genuinely looking forward to being enlightened.

The word Minority has a very clear definition and I made it very clear why it was an appropriate term to use in this context.

Likewise I used Scaremongering in response to a suggested but not supported fear that currently (and justly) popular and well-funded aspects of the BMC's work would lose out as a result of Olympic inclusion.

None of this is very difficult or in any way controversial.

Again, the BMC is a body of elected representatives with a well-defined democratic process. If you want to see changes in the way it takes decisions the way to go about it is to get involved. If there is indeed a majority of climbers or even of BMC members who agree with you then you should have little difficulty in effecting the required changes.

> (In reply to simondgee)
>
> The word Minority has a very clear definition ....

a very clear definition, which is quantifiable otherwise it is subjective unsubstaniated twaddle ... play those numbers out John?

> ...suggested but not supported fear that currently (and justly) popular and well-funded aspects of the BMC's work would lose out as a result of Olympic inclusion.

If it isn't ring-fenced funding from current streams (or new ones) something has to give unless we are pulling rabbits out of hats (I presume we aren't ignorant enough to 'assume' that).

> None of this is very difficult or in any way controversial.

Your right it isn't and I believe the majority of active climbers in this country would reserve judgement on climbing in the olympics.

> Again, the BMC is a body of elected representatives ...

...uhh ?...the word is 'representative' so where is the membership qualified mandate to pursue climbings inclusion in the olympics ...there must be something on which that action hinged...for all i know its never been asked of its members or maybe i missed it...?

Its not difficult to grasp...who and how has the decision been made to pursue the inclusion of climbing in the olympics and what are the implications?

The BMC is guided by it's regional committees and I believe they all supported the bid. The committees are guided by what local climbers say to them. If you can't get to a meeting then they are happy to hear those opinions by email, letter, phone or conversation. As you feel strongly about this subject, which method did you use to communicate your opinions to them.

The BMC represents climbing in this country; and that is all climbers. But it's membership is nowhere near the total number of climbers in the country. So polling the membership is not conclusive because the majority (non members) have not been included in the poll. For example; if half voted against you'd have 35,000 noes. Yet in London alone, each of the established large walls ( Mile End, the Castle and the Westway) have a larger membership than the BMC. If just one of them polled it's members and got a larger number of yeses..who would we listen to. The walls are, in the main, pro the bid for obvious commercial reasons. They would easily amass more yeses that the BMC would ever get noes. The BMC is aware of this. Their committees have voted to support the bid. The walls support the bid. A lot of competitions already occur. Youth comps, BRYCCs, BMC and local leading ladders. National bouldering comps and many local and regional bouldering leagues. BLOCFEST and SIBL etc etc. Several thousand climbers are voting by participating. The BMC represents climbers and there is a tangible number of climbers involved in comps. There is not a tangible body of climbers opposing comps; there is only supposition on the behalf of a few posters.

Scaremongering is an apt choice of word. The same dire warnings will be trotted out. It will ruin climbing. Thousands of new climbers means that the crags will be over-run, polished and grid bolted. Well we've already had a huge influx of climber over the last twenty years. The crags aren't over-run, they aren't completely polished and they aren't grid bolted.

The BMC has received it's money for the next four years. If the olympic bid is successful it will ask for extra money in 2017. So the important core services such as access will not be affected.

Seems like your gripe is with the BMC and the facts you're asking for would be most appropriately coming from them - not that I have any detailed knowledge anyway to offer. Not sure what you're hoping to gain from repeatedly harping on about it on here. I'd be careful though because at this rate it could end up sounding like you're peddling a conspiracy theory, even though I don't doubt you believe you have plenty of justification for your views.

What I do think is that the BMC has been looking after UK climbing pretty well on the whole in recent years (although anyone who knows much about my involvement with the BMC 15 years ago may be very surprised to hear me say that now, but times and people move on) and though no organisation will ever be perfect I have reasonable cause to believe that - in general - the people in charge have the interests of all UK climbers at heart.

In reply to john arran:
far from it John I wholly support the BMC in its remit and activities especially in Access and Conservation and in Youth Development. However, when it is pronounced as fact that it is a minority that do not want the climbing in the Olympics when I can see no evidence to substantiate that 'fact', or that I haven't seen it explored in any dialogue with its 'fare paying' members when there are the deeper implications beyond 'our sport will being on telly' then yes I'd like to understand how we got to that point...but your right I'll just ask directly as the answers are not gonna appear on here.

How terrible! Only the other day I was on top of everest and I found a mountaineering mag, with an article in it, on, 'How to climb Everest'. Bored I found a bike mag, with articles on 'how to bike better'. Fed up I found a canoeing mag with...... Horror of Horrors an article on how to eskimo roll. fancy, canoeing mag with articles on how to eskimo roll.

> First of all, Summit has a great big title 'How to climb on rock'. How bloody depressing - a rock climbing magazine aimed at people who don't rock climb.
>

First of all, get your facts right. Summit is not a rock climbing magazine. It's the official magazine of the BMC, a body which covers far more than rock climbing, and includes many members who are not rock climbers.

Secondly the article you object to is a mere couple of pages towards the back of the issue. There's an interesting (and eye-opening) article on helicopter rescues, some important stuff on bird restrictions, info on the AGM, lots of news and some pretty pictures of via ferratas. All in all, a well balanced issue.

So why is the offending 'how to climb outdoors' article given prominence on the cover. Maybe it's because this issue is the one that gets sent out to all the club members, some of whom may have joined a club in order to learn how to climb. Maybe because copies of summit are frequently left at climbing walls. Maybe because part of the idea of summit is to be informative.

> First of all, Summit has a great big title 'How to climb on rock'. How bloody depressing - a rock climbing magazine aimed at people who don't rock climb.

It's not a rock climbing magazine, just as the BMC is not a rock climbing club. Many climbers appear to forget this. Summit is produced exclusively for members of the BMC, some of which will either a) never climbed before or b) only climbed indoors.

In reply to tlm: I replied to this when the post first appeared stating I climb indoors as training for outdoors. One thing I didn't think of at the time is what a lot of mags seem to cover and why I don't by them. OK some of you have a problem with there being climbing wall features in them but how many of you climb above say E8? I ask this because flicking through the mags they seem to report on the high end stuff more than anything and surly that is about as far removed from what most climbers do as wall climbing is!

> (In reply to tlm) Have to agree, any climbing magazine that starts with "Heading Outside, how to climb on rock" shows how pathetic and culturally moribund, and controlled by statist leftist social engineering, our society has become.

And the Most Frothingly Bonkers Statement of the Week award goes to...

I didn't bother reading the article, but I think its good that the BMC acknowledges that their membership is diverse and may well include a large number of indoor climbers who may like to get outside. I would imagine a lot of people would be put off joining an organisation that only caters to "real" climbers and looks down on people who only climb on plastic.

As for the Olympics, IMO it would be a good thing (but I feel that it will struggle against some of the other established mainstream sports). It would mean investment in the sport and you never know, a little bit of time and effort made by the government to improve/open access to some crags in areas that are currently out of bounds. At the end of the day I think we would all benefit from it in some way.

I'm not sure about the flood of cheap faux climbing gear that would be sold in JJB sports and the like, but thats something for all the real-ale drinkers to moan about in the future over their post climb pint.

> Secondly, at the climbing wall, I looked for something to read with my coffee - only one climbing magazine available, but loads of copies of M&D....
>
> ...which I found out stood for mummies and daddies!!! OH MY GOD! A climbing wall with loads of magazines aimed at non-climbing parents!

That bit makes sense, all the kids clubs etc where parents bring their kids along to climb and then they sit around watching

> (In reply to tlm)
> [...]
>
> Secondly the article you object to is a mere couple of pages towards the back of the issue. There's an interesting (and eye-opening) article on helicopter rescues, some important stuff on bird restrictions, info on the AGM, lots of news and some pretty pictures of via ferratas. All in all, a well balanced issue.

I agree it's just the one amongst many "bite-size" articles - I thought there may have been more comment about the guy in the picture climbing without a helmet or runner! and the news that the BMC have employed 3 more staff to "primarily support new climbers making the transition to outdoors, and also to promote club membership".

>
> The BMC represents climbing in this country; and that is all climbers. But it's membership is nowhere near the total number of climbers in the country. So polling the membership is not conclusive because the majority (non members) have not been included in the poll.

Is it right that "climbers" who are not BMC members should apparently hold as as much sway with the BMC as their own membership (who provide most of the BMC income) ?

> I agree it's just the one amongst many "bite-size" articles - I thought there may have been more comment about the guy in the picture climbing without a helmet or runner! and the news that the BMC have employed 3 more staff to "primarily support new climbers making the transition to outdoors, and also to promote club membership".

I was a bit surprised that when they mentioned clubs in the article, that they didn't tell you how you could find your nearest club (on their website). Also, on their website, it's really hard to find the list of clubs - if you click on 'clubs' it gives information FOR clubs, not ABOUT clubs....

The BMC remit is to represent the interests of climbers, walkers and mountaineers as a whole in the country; whether you're paying part of their wages or not. So I don't think my annual fee makes my opinion carry more weight than a non member. I believe the BMC receives just over a million annually from membership fees; and will get three million from Sport England over the next four years. So non members who are tax payers are contributing.

In reply to caver:
IIRC BMC Area Meetings are open to everyone, not just members of the BMC. Which makes it even odder that this apparently huge silent majority of climbers who are implacably opposed to the BMC supporting the IFSC Olympic bid never seem to turn up in any significant numbers.

> (In reply to tlm)
>
> Climbing is climbing.
>
> I climb almost exclusively indoors due to time and family commitments that preclude me from climbing outdoors with any regularity. I don't regard my indoor climbing as training for outdoors, I just like it for what it is. To be honest I couldn;t give a shit about rock climbing....

I've never climbed outdoors, might like to one day, it might be cheaper in the long run.

> (In reply to caver)
> IIRC BMC Area Meetings are open to everyone, not just members of the BMC. Which makes it even odder that this apparently huge silent majority of climbers who are implacably opposed to the BMC supporting the IFSC Olympic bid never seem to turn up in any significant numbers.

Maybe they just don't like the BMC? If I lived in England, and when I did, I never had anything to do with it. I don't think it defends the interest of climbing at all, and this Olympic nonsense is further proof.

I believe that 'Bruce Hooker' is an instance of an AI experiment, the original objective having been to produce a web bot that can prolong an online argument indefinitely by deliberate misinterpretation of any facts or statements offered by its opponents, changing tack when cornered, and creating distractions by attempting to introduce lines of argument which are only peripherally relevant to the original point of contention.